SAN JOSE, Calif. — Jurors here awarded Apple a fraction of the patent infringement damages it sought from Samsung, failing to hurt the Korean company or slow down the Android juggernaut, analysts said.
The verdict in the second Apple v. Samsung patent infringement case here gives both sides reason to claim victory publicly and feel defeat privately.
Apple can claim it won by far the most damages ($119.6 million) and proved the most instances of infringement. However, it reaped little more than 5% of the $2.191 billion in the damages it sought -- far less than the $1.05 billion awarded in its first case here 18 months ago -- and the jury found no infringement on two of its five patents in the case.
Samsung was awarded damages for Apple infringing on one of its patents, but it got an even smaller fraction ($158,400) of the total ($6 million) it sought, and a fraction of the amount awarded to Apple. It was the first decision in the two cases of Apple infringing on a Samsung patent.
A few shoes have yet to fall in the case. Judge Lucy H. Koh will be asked to grant an injunction against Samsung selling infringing mobile devices in the US. That's not widely expected, and in any case, Samsung's latest models (such as the Galaxy S5) were not at issue in the trial.
Jurors found Samsung guilty of willful infringement on the '721 patent, on which it awarded just $750,648 in damages. The decision gives Judge Koh the option of increasing those damages up to threefold.
On Monday, jurors will be dismissed and will get an opportunity to talk publicly about their thinking behind the verdict. It's anyone's guess what the four men and four women on the jury will do.
Before they are let go, they will be asked why they assessed no damages for one Samsung smartphone they decided had infringed -- an apparent mistake caught by Apple's attorneys.
The eight-person jury decided Samsung owes Apple $119.6 million for infringing on three of its patents. Apple owes Samsung $158,000 for infringing on one of its patents. The full verdict form is below.
>> Last year a patent was forefully filed with my name on it! No amou t of protest would prevent my univ. from filing it.
I can loan you my name, please. I want patents because that is money. I have no interest in creating technologies if they will not make my life and those of my family members better through wealth creation,
>> "If Steve Jobs were alive today, should he be in jail?
That was sensational journalism. Apple is a corp and not Steve Jobs. The highest penalty is fine Apple. There is no point of Jobs going to jail as Apple is not a one man business. That is why people incorporate!
>> this is why I am suggesting that these patent cases should be handled by engineer lawyers since they will understand them in the engineering perspective.
I can assure you that most of the lawyers or those in their team have backgrounds relevant to the technologies being disputed. Law in America is a second calling. Most times, IP attorneys have technical first degrees and then they go to Law School.
>> Ventura was so good word processing software, many of current Microsoft MS Words lags behind in many features and ease of using it
That is actually true except that Ventura lagged behind in the metric that matter - finding how to get people to buy the software. As I have noted in the past, it is not just technology that wins. You need to have a business development strategy. Microsoft was excellent in that than other competitors.
>> ! Thankfully the Indian system has multiple safeguards (in theory) to avoid this problem.
You need to consider that some of the revolutionary ideas on earth had been rejected by peer review. The constructs of juror is that if you cannot make your case against a novice, you have no chance before pros. That means, let your argument be so simple that any sane person may make sense of it.
>> Haven't the jurors been using word processors for the past decades?
Jurors are expected to be "experts" to understand things they have no expertise in. I think all comes down to the theatritical performances of attorneys. Both Samsung and Apple invented "nothing". The people that invented things have all died and most died poor with nothing. They include Pythogaras, Euclid etc. None patented their models
@anan.yaligar: this jury actually did an amazing job especially considering that while judge Koh allowed Apple's lawyer to portraty the USPTO as an invincible institution to the jury, she forbade Samsung's lawyers from telling the jury that the USPTO screwed up and had to invalidate some of Apple's patents which caused Apple to withdraw from the trial right before it began.
Or that Samsung's lawyers were prevented from explaining why Apple's patents royalties were unreasonable and that, in another on-going case involving Motorola, Apple is asking only $0.60 for the same exact datalink patent vs Apple's average asking price $8/patent in this particular case.
I did not expect this case to end this way, expected jury to be hard on the side of Samsung. But after reading this article I think the jury was fair. But generally those who have achieved and gained a lot in this case are the lawyers from both sides; this is why I am suggesting that these patent cases should be handled by engineer lawyers since they will understand them in the engineering perspective.
Considering that the jury was from the heart of America's Silicon Valley, I must say I was surprised the jury didn't consider it their patriotic duty to severely punish Korean Samsung. The chances are most of them owned Android phones. I guess the Samsung lawyers learned from the previous trial not to select hard core Silicon Valley employees, one of whom who turned out to be jury foreman at the last trial.
It never ceases to amaze me how blind justice actually is. We technical people can readily see the blind lawyers leading the blind judges in interpreting what these blind people actually believe is "expert testimony", usually coming from an ivory tower acedemic who has published the most papers. Non-PhDs need not apply.
David Patterson, known for his pioneering research that led to RAID, clusters and more, is part of a team at UC Berkeley that recently made its RISC-V processor architecture an open source hardware offering. We talk with Patterson and one of his colleagues behind the effort about the opportunities they see, what new kinds of designs they hope to enable and what it means for today’s commercial processor giants such as Intel, ARM and Imagination Technologies.